DOCSLIB.ORG

HOPE VI Data Compilation and Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HOPE VI Data Compilation and Analysis HOPE VI Data Compilation and Analysis PD&R Research Partnerships PD&R Research Partnerships Partnering With Universities, Philanthropic Organizations, Other Federal or State Agencies for Innovative Research Projects That Inform HUD’s Policies and Programs HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) has authority to enter into unsolicited research partnerships with universities, philanthropic organizations, other federal or state agencies, or a combination of these entities through noncompetitive cooperative agreements. The purpose of these partnerships is to allow PD&R to participate in innovative research projects that inform HUD’s policies and programs. Research partnerships require that at least 50 percent of the costs are funded by the partnering agency. PD&R is focusing its cooperative agreement efforts on research partnerships that will advance one of the following five key areas: 1. Homeownership and housing finance; 2. Affordable rental housing; 3. Housing as a platform for improving quality of life; 4. Sustainable and inclusive communities; or 5. HUD assets. Visit PD&R’s website www.huduser.gov to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need. Final Report submitted to: Office of Policy Development and Research U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cover photos courtesy of McCormack Baron Salazar featuring HOPE VI projects Murphy Park in St. Louis, MO, former C.J. Peete, now Harmony Oaks, in New Orleans, LA and Tremont Pointe in Cleveland, OH. This report was supported by funding under a Research Partnerships grant (RP-14-OH-005) with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government. National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities 2 | P a g e Case Western Reserve University Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 5 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 6 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Policy Context ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Knowledge Gap ...................................................................................................................................... 7 National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities.......................................................................... 7 Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 8 II. Summary of Key Findings .................................................................................................................. 11 Redevelopment Progress ..................................................................................................................... 11 Unit Production ................................................................................................................................. 11 Return and Relocation ...................................................................................................................... 12 Timeframes of Redevelopment Progress ...................................................................................... 12 Financing ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Community and Supportive Services ................................................................................................ 13 III. Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Grant Awards ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Nationwide ........................................................................................................................................ 15 HOPE VI Grants by Region ............................................................................................................. 18 HOPE VI Grants by State ................................................................................................................. 20 Redevelopment Progress ..................................................................................................................... 24 Redevelopment Progress by Award Year ..................................................................................... 24 Income/Tenure Mix ......................................................................................................................... 26 Unit Production by Subsidy Type .................................................................................................. 29 Tenure Mix ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Projected versus Actual Production ................................................................................................... 30 Timeframes of Redevelopment Progress .......................................................................................... 32 Comparative Analysis of Redevelopment Progress ........................................................................ 34 Region .................................................................................................................................................. 34 Income/Tenure Mix ............................................................................................................................. 35 Tenure Mix .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Size ...................................................................................................................................................... 38 National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities 3 | P a g e Case Western Reserve University Age ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 Return Rates........................................................................................................................................... 40 Return Rates by Award Year ............................................................................................................... 40 Comparative Analysis of Return Rates ............................................................................................. 42 Region .................................................................................................................................................. 42 Income/Tenure Mix ............................................................................................................................. 42 Size ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 Age ....................................................................................................................................................... 44 Funding Sources........................................................................................................................................ 44 Comparative Analysis of Funding ..................................................................................................... 47 Region .................................................................................................................................................. 47 Income/Tenure Mix ............................................................................................................................. 48 Age ....................................................................................................................................................... 48 Community and Supportive Services (CSS) ......................................................................................... 50 Nationwide ............................................................................................................................................ 52 CSS Services across Sites ...................................................................................................................... 55 IV. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 56 Production.............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Housing Choice Voucher Program
    Housing Choice Voucher Program Owner Information Packet If you have any questions please contact the Housing Authority of Kansas City at: 920 Main, Suite 701, Kansas City, Missouri 64105 (816) 968- 4100 Table of Contents Welcome …………… …………………………………………………………… 3 Section 8 Program Overview ………………………………………………….. 4 How Tenants are Qualified for Section 8 ……………………………………... 4 Landlord Qualifications………………………………………………………….. 5 How the Process Begins ……………………………………………………….. 5 Selecting a Suitable Renter ……………………………………………………. 6 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges …………………………………………….. 6 Completion of Request for Tenancy Approval ……………………………….. 7 Proof of Ownership ……………………………………………………………… 8 Initial Inspection …………………………………………………………………. 8 Lead Base Paint …………………………………………………………………. 9 Lead Based Paint Procedures …………………………………………………. 9 What is Rent Reasonable.. ……………………………………………………... 10 Owner Provided Lease ………………………………………………………….. 10 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Contract Execution …………………… 11 Annual Inspection and Tenant Re-examination Process …………………… 11 Owner Request for Rent Increase …………………………………………….. 12 Other Types of Inspections …………………………………………………….. 13 Termination of Tenancy by Owner …………………………………………….. 14 Tenant Move-Out without Proper Notice ……………………………………… 14 Other Reasons a Family May be Required to Move ………………………… 15 Termination of Assistance by HAKC ………………………………………….. 14 Change of Ownership …………………………………………………………... 15 1099 ………………………. ……………………………………………………... 15 - 2-Revised 11/5/2009 Owner, Tenant, and HAKC Responsibilities ………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • American Rescue Plan Housing & Homelessness Programs and Their
    American Rescue Plan Housing & Homelessness The American Rescue Plan (ARP) includes funds for programs to help renters and homeowners to alleviate pandemic-related housing issues. ARP includes a robust and comprehensive package of relief funding to boost housing stability, reduce homelessness, and support others facing housing-related hardships. Programs and Their Purposes Emergency Rental Assistance Program - $21.6 billion (U.S. Department of Treasury) The Emergency Rental Assistance Program provides emergency aid to low-income renters that have lost their income, are experiencing financial hardship and are at risk of losing housing. These funds, provided in the December emergency package, can be used for rent payments or arrearages to avoid/prevent eviction. The program includes $2.5 billion for low-income renter households paying more than 50 percent of income on rent or living in substandard or over- crowded conditions, rental market costs, and change in employment since February 2020 used as the factors for allocating funds. Eligible households include one person or more qualified for unemployment benefits; reduced income or significant costs during COVID-19 pandemic; risk of homelessness; household income below 80% area median income (AMI). Emergency Housing Vouchers - $5 billion (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) The Emergency Housing Vouchers for Section 8 Housing provides vouchers for public housing agencies to individuals and families who are currently or recently homeless, and to those who are fleeing domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficking. Vouchers cannot be reissued after assistance to family ends. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, unlike cash assistance, vouchers offer longer-lasting support that can help renters remain stably housed as the recovery takes hold.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Trust Funds: Barriers and Opportunities
    CitizensCitizens ResearResearchch CCouncilouncil ofof MichiganMichigan HousingHousing TrustTrust Funds:Funds: BarriersBarriers andand OppOpporortunitiestunities DecemberDecember 20092009 RepReporortt 358358 CCELEBRELEBRAATINGTING 9393 YYEARSEARS OFOF IINDEPENDENTNDEPENDENT,, NNONPONPARARTISANTISAN PPUBLICUBLIC PPOLICOLICYY RRESEARCHESEARCH ININ MMICHIGANICHIGAN Board of Directors Chairman Vice Chairman Treasurer Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Jeffrey D. Bergeron Nick A. Khouri Joseph R. Angileri Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Bryan Roosa Deloitte. Masco Corporation General Motors Corporation Jeffrey D. Bergeron Ingrid A. Gregg Lynda Rossi Ernst & Young LLP Earhart Foundation Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan John T. Bozzella Marybeth S. Howe Jerry E. Rush Chrysler Group LLC Wells Fargo Bank ArvinMeritor, Inc. Beth Chappell Nick A. Khouri Michael A. Semanco Detroit Economic Club DTE Energy Company Hennessey Capital LLC Rick DiBartolomeo Daniel T. Lis Terence A. Thomas, Sr. Rehmann Kelly Services, Inc. St. John Health Terence M. Donnelly Aleksandra A. Miziolek Amanda Van Dusen Dickinson Wright PLLC Dykema Gossett PLLC Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Randall W. Eberts Cathy H. Nash Stone PLC W. E. Upjohn Institute Citizens Bank Kent J. Vana David O. Egner Paul R. Obermeyer Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Hudson-Webber Foundation Comerica Bank Howlett LLP Advisory Director Louis Betanzos Board of Trustees Chairman Vice Chairman Patrick J. Ledwidge Mark A. Murray Terence E. Adderley Roderick D. Gillum William L. Matthews Irving Rose Kelly Services, Inc. General Motors Corporation Plante & Moran PLLC Edward Rose & Sons Jeffrey D. Bergeron Allan D. Gilmour Kenneth J. Matzick Gary D. Russi Ernst & Young LLP Alfred R. Glancy III Beaumont Hospitals Oakland University Stephanie W. Bergeron Unico Investment Group LLC Sarah L. McClelland Nancy M. Schlichting Walsh College Thomas J. Haas Chase Henry Ford Health System David P.
    [Show full text]
  • New Public Data Available on USDA Rural Housing Service's
    Data Shop Data Shop, a department of Cityscape, presents short articles or notes on the uses of data in housing and urban research. Through this department, the Office of Policy Development and Research introduces readers to new and overlooked data sources and to improved techniques in using well-known data. The emphasis is on sources and methods that analysts can use in their own work. Researchers often run into knotty data problems involving data interpretation or manipulation that must be solved before a project can proceed, but they seldom get to focus in detail on the solutions to such problems. If you have an idea for an applied, data-centric note of no more than 3,000 words, please send a one-paragraph abstract to [email protected] for consideration. New Public Data Available on USDA Rural Housing Service’s Single-Family and Multifamily Programs Corianne Payton Scally Urban Institute David Lipsetz U.S. Department of Agriculture (former) Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the U.S. government. Abstract The Rural Housing Service (RHS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development agency has released a comprehensive set of public data on its direct and guaranteed loans across its single-family and multifamily housing program areas. These data are available for free download via a periodic release on data.gov and available to the public to map along with select public demographic, social, and eco- nomic variables compiled and maintained by PolicyMap.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Status of Urban Empowerment Zones
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee GAO on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives December 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Status of Urban Empowerment Zones GOA years 1921 - 1996 GAO/RCED-97-21 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-275112 December 20, 1996 The Honorable Christopher Shays Chairman Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: For over 30 years, the nation has faced the challenge of revitalizing its deteriorating urban and rural communities. In the past, the federal government has tried to revive distressed areas by providing grants for activities ranging from job training and social services to the repair and replacement of aging infrastructure. The most recent effort to help distressed communities is called the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) program. This 10-year program targets federal grants to distressed urban and rural communities for social services and community redevelopment and provides tax and regulatory relief to attract or retain businesses in distressed communities. In general, the same eligibility criteria and selection process apply to the EZs and the ECs. However, the EZs receive much larger grants than the ECs, and businesses located in the EZs are eligible for more tax incentives than businesses in the ECs. The enacting legislation designated 104 communities as either EZs or ECs. Federal funding for the EZs and ECs was made available through the title XX Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program, which is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
    [Show full text]
  • Sustaining Supportive Services Beyond HOPE VI
    Successful Transitions Sustaining Supportive Services beyond HOPE VI HOPE VI is a unique program that has Overview of HOPE VI Program provided practitioners with a flexible tool In 1989, Congress authorized the for revitalizing distressed communities and establishment of a National Commission on improving the lives of public housing Severely Distressed Public Housing with a residents. A time -limited program, HOPE mandate to 1) identify those public housing VI may ultimately be judged more on how developments that are severely distressed; 2) successfully it helps to improve the lives of assess strategies to improve their conditions; public housing residents and less on its and 3) develop a National Action Plan. ability to construct and rehabilitate houses. Based on the Commission’s findings that As its “sunset” approaches in 2002, the about seven percent of the nation’s housing question of its sustainability looms large. In stock had to be replaced, HOPE VI was both theory and practice, HOPE VI grants created in 1993 through an Appropriations were intended to be seed funds and were Act, and with extensive bipartisan support. meant to act as a catalyst for change. This was a major HUD initiative with no Grantees must not only sustain the new real implementing regulations and with a focus estate portfolio that results from HOPE VI, on comprehensive and holistic approaches to they must also develop strategies for physical improvements, resident self- sustaining the innovative and successful sufficiency, management improvements and supportive services that are critical to local decision making. At the time, funding helping residents move toward greater self- for HOPE VI was roughly equivalent to sufficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • July - September 2018 Volume 14, Issue 3
    JULY - SEPTEMBER 2018 VOLUME 14, ISSUE 3 QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER OF LITTLE DIXIE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, INC. Agency Receives State Farm Neighborhood Assist® Grant to Help Turn Caring Into Doing Broken Bow, OK (September 25, Education Initiative, will be Assist grants,” said Allison Bertsche, 2018) – In just 10 days in August, getting assistance from State Farm. Public Affairs Director at State Farm. 167,000 people cast 4.5 million votes State Farm is proud to announce the At least one submission was in support of their favorite causes. As Top 40 vote-getting causes will each received from each of the 50 states. a result, 40 communities, in 19 states, receive a $25,000 grant to improve The State Farm Review Committee including Little Dixie Community their communities. selected the top 200 finalists from Action Agency’s Southeastern State Farm Neighborhood Assist 2,000 submissions. In the seven years Oklahoma Improving Childhood is a crowd-sourced philanthropic of the program, more than 250 causes program that empowers communities have received a total of $7 million to to identify issues in their enact change in their communities. neighborhoods. Non-profits affiliated For a complete list of this year’s 02 Region 2 Self-Help with each of the top 40 causes receive top 40 causes, please visit: Housing News grants to address them. www.neighborhoodassist.com. This initiative will strengthen and 04 Around the Agency improve the educational environment 08 Court Appointed at LDCAA’s Broken Bow Early Special Advocates Learning Center by incorporating innovative approaches to learning. 10 Early Childhood The agency will utilize these funds to Programs purchase developmentally- 15 Housing Programs appropriate technology solutions to improve education achievement 17 Retired and Senior levels of children enrolled.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Hope Vi Terms
    HOPE VI Guidance November 2001 GLOSSARY OF HOPE VI TERMS ACC: Annual Contributions Contract. A contract between HUD and the PHA whereby HUD agrees to provide financial assistance, and the PHA agrees to comply with HUD requirements (including long-term low- income use restrictions) for the development, operation, and modernization of public housing units in a development. Accessibility: HOPE VI developments are subject to the accessibility requirements contained in several Federal laws. All applicable laws must be read together and followed. PIH Notice 99-52, available through HUDCLIPS (see below) provides an overview of all pertinent laws and implementing regulations pertaining to HOPE VI. Under the Fair Housing Act of 1988, all new construction of covered multifamily buildings must include certain features of accessible and adaptable design. Units covered are all those in buildings with four or more units and one or more elevators, and all ground floor units with living area located entirely on the ground floor in buildings without elevators. The accessible design requirements are: 1. Accessible entrance on an accessible route 2. Accessible public and common use areas 3. Accessible doorways 4. Accessible routes into and through the unit 5. Accessible light switches, electrical outlets, and environmental controls 6. Reinforced walls in bathrooms 7. Usable kitchens and bathrooms HUD encourages accessibility in for-sale units (5 percent for mobility impaired and 2 percent for hearing or vision disabilities). Accessibility at 5 percent/2 percent is required in multifamily rental units. More information on accessibility may be obtained from HUD's Fair Housing website: www.hud.gov/groups/fairhousing.cfm.
    [Show full text]
  • New Schools on the Block Understanding and Expanding Community Developer Participation in Early Childhood Care and Education
    New Schools on the Block Understanding and Expanding Community Developer Participation in Early Childhood Care and Education Matthew Singh Edward M. Gramlich Fellow, 2012 NeighborWorks America / Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies Working Together for Strong Communities NEIGHBORWORKS AMERICA Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation dba NeighborWorks America was established by an Act of Congress in 1978 (Public Law 95-557). A primary objective of the Corporation is to increase the capacity of local, community-based organizations to revitalize their communities, particularly by expanding and improving housing opportunities. These local organizations, known as NeighborWorks organizations, are independent, resident-led, nonprofit partnerships that include business leaders and government officials. All together they make up the NeighborWorks network. JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies advances understanding of housing issues and informs policy. Through its research, education, and public outreach programs, the center helps leaders in government, business, and the civic sectors make decisions that effectively address the needs of cities and communities. Through graduate and executive courses, as well as fellowships and internship opportunities, the Joint Center also trains and inspires the next generation of housing leaders. This paper was written with the support of the NeighborWorks’ America Edward M. Gramlich Fellowship in Community and Economic Development which provides
    [Show full text]
  • Subsidized Housing and a Criminal Record in Cook County: What You Need to Know
    fdf SUBSIDIZED HOUSING AND A CRIMINAL RECORD IN COOK COUNTY: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW What are my local public housing authorities? The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) is the public housing authority for the City of Chicago. The Housing Authority of Cook County (HACC) is the public housing authority for most of suburban Cook County. What is public housing? What is subsidized housing? The government funds two main housing programs for low-income individuals: Traditional public housing, in which housing developments are owned and administered by public housing authorities, and the housing choice voucher program (formerly known as Section 8), which provides rental subsidies for tenants renting on the private market. That means that the housing authority provides you with a voucher that pays a portion of your rent based on your income for a qualified apartment. I have a criminal record. Am I eligible for public housing? Having a criminal record alone does not disqualify you from living in public housing or receiving a housing choice voucher. Unless you have been convicted of a sex offense and are subject to a lifetime registration under a state sex offender registration program OR you have been convicted of manufacturing or producing methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing, it’s possible—even likely—that you qualify for public or subsidized housing. Is there housing available in my area? If you are interested in living in public or subsidized housing, you can sign up the next time that CHA or HACC opens one of their waitlists. Keep reading for instructions on how to do that.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing Wait List Preferences
    ESTABLISHING WAIT LIST PREFERENCES Background Access to Public Housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) can help prevent and end homelessness for families and individuals with extremely low incomes, but federal funding is limited. Nationally, Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) can assist only about one of every four eligible households, and waiting lists are often very long. Many PHAs have decided to utilize waiting list preferences to target housing assistance to the most vulnerable people in their community, including families and individuals who are experiencing homelessness. In June 2013, HUD provided guidance on housing individuals and families experiencing homelessness through the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs (Notice PIH 2013-15). This guidance includes strategies to expand such housing opportunities, including strategies for waiting list management and homeless admissions preferences. Flexibility All PHAs have significant flexibility in establishing procedures and priorities for waiting lists and tenant selection, within the overall framework provided by federal law. Each PHA is required to establish an Annual Plan that describes the PHA’s approach to meeting local housing needs among low- and very low-income people. The PHA Plan describes eligibility for housing assistance and tenant screening and selection criteria. PHAs must ensure that 75 percent of households admitted into the voucher program and 40 percent of households admitted into public housing each year are extremely-low income. Beyond those requirements, PHAs can establish policies for managing their waiting lists: for example, PHAs can select households on their waiting-list on a first-come, first-served basis or through a lottery. Many PHAs establish priorities or “preferences” for households with particular needs, including USICH PHA Portal – Wait List Preferences Page 1 households experiencing homelessness, who are applying for or are on waiting lists for public housing or voucher assistance or both.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-06-727 Empowerment Zone And
    United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees September 2006 EMPOWERMENT ZONE AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PROGRAM Improvements Occurred in Communities, but the Effect of the Program Is Unclear a GAO-06-727 September 2006 EMPOWERMENT ZONE AND Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PROGRAM Highlights of GAO-06-727, a report to Improvements Occurred in Communities, but congressional committees the Effect of the Program Is Unclear Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The EZ/EC program is one of the Round I Empowerment Zones (EZ) and Enterprise Communities (EC) most recent large-scale federal implemented a variety of activities using $1 billion in federal grant funding effort intended to revitalize from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as of March impoverished urban and rural 2006, the designated communities had expended all but 15 percent of this communities. There have been funding. Most of the activities that the grant recipients put in place were three rounds of EZs and two rounds of ECs, all of which are community development projects, such as projects supporting education and scheduled to end no later than housing. Other activities included economic opportunity initiatives such as December 2009. job training and loan programs. Although all EZs and ECs also reported using the program grants to leverage funds from other sources, reliable data The Community Renewal Tax on the extent of leveraging were not available. Relief Act of 2000 mandated that GAO audit and report in 2004, 2007, According to federal standards, agencies should oversee the use of public and 2010 on the EZ/EC program resources and ensure that ongoing monitoring occurs.
    [Show full text]